[19.0][MIG] hr_attendance by hbrunn · Pull Request #5705 · OCA/OpenUpgrade

hbrunn · 2026-06-09T13:32:49Z

No description provided.

hbrunn · 2026-06-09T13:33:02Z

/ocabot migration hr_attendance

Depends on :

hr : [19.0][MIG] hr+dependencies #5566
barcodes : [19.0][MIG] stock, stock_account #5547
base_geolocalize : [19.0][MIG] base_geolocalize: nothing to do #5731

hbrunn · 2026-06-23T09:23:28Z

@legalsylvain done in #5745, now setting our whole discussion as off-topic

legalsylvain · 2026-06-23T10:00:40Z

@legalsylvain done in #5745, now setting our whole discussion as off-topic

thanks a lot for this Job. I manually run the script a last time for the V19. new 19 PR should be handled by your script.

pedrobaeza · 2026-06-24T06:47:05Z

+---Models in module 'hr_attendance'---
+obsolete model hr.attendance.overtime (renamed to hr.attendance.overtime.line)
+new model hr.attendance.overtime.line (renamed from hr.attendance.overtime)
+


Why adding these empty lines that makes the reading harder? I think the comment should be together with the analysis lines block.

well I think the empty lines improve readability. If that's so important to you, add it to https://oca.github.io/OpenUpgrade/090_contribute.html#how-to-contribute-new-migration-scripts and I'll bulk update the whole branch, as I've been doing this for a long time

pedrobaeza · 2026-06-24T06:57:17Z

+
+# NOTHING TO DO
+
+hr_attendance / hr.attendance            / in_location (char)            : NEW


Reorganize this line into in_city DEL comment for seeing both together and to understand the change.

hard disagree about reordering lines in the work file. I want to be able to say diff upgrade_analysis* to easily verify all lines from the generated file are in the work file (=only whitespace or comments in the diff)

pedrobaeza · 2026-06-24T07:03:36Z

+    # date is required in v19, fill with create_date if empty, possibly wrong
+    env.cr.execute(
+        f"""
+        UPDATE hr_attendance_overtime_line SET date=(


Why not get it the same from the nearest attendance record?

how do you propose to find the nearest record? create_date? that's just as prone to filling in a wrong date here.

I consider overtime lines without date garbage data which people should clean up, and do the update only to satisfy the non-null constraint

pedrobaeza · 2026-06-24T07:05:06Z

+SQL_EMPLOYEE2TZ = """
+(
+    SELECT
+    hr_employee.id employee_id,


I find you new SQL style a bit difficult to read, and very vertical scroll intensive. Either indent the lines after the command (SELECT, FROM, etc), or put them in the same line as always.

It's not so new, but indeed was lacking indentation

Based on the link, this formatting does not follow the recommended style https://docs.telemetry.mozilla.org/concepts/sql_style.html#join-conditions

Suggested change

hr_employee.id employee_id,

FROM

hr_employee

JOIN

resource_resource

ON hr_employee.resource_id=resource_resource.id

LEFT JOIN

resource_calendar

ON resource_resource.calendar_id=resource_calendar.id

JOIN

res_company

ON hr_employee.company_id=res_company.id

LEFT JOIN

resource_calendar company_resource_calendar

ON res_company.resource_calendar_id=company_resource_calendar.id

pedrobaeza · 2026-06-24T07:05:49Z

+        WHERE
+        hr_attendance.employee_id=hr_attendance_overtime_line.employee_id
+        AND
+        hr_attendance.date=hr_attendance_overtime_line.date


This part may not fit according current code, and even more, we may have more than one record for the same date.

which code do you mean? and indeed this can lead to updating the same record multiple times, but how does this matter?

pedrobaeza · 2026-06-24T07:07:32Z

+    """
+    Pre-fill hr.attendance#date
+    """
+    openupgrade.add_fields(


Why using add_fields instead of add_columns or a simply ALTER TABLE?

good question, changed to add_columns

carlos-lopez-tecnativa

TT58628

carlos-lopez-tecnativa · 2026-07-09T18:49:41Z

+SQL_EMPLOYEE2TZ = """
+(
+    SELECT
+    hr_employee.id employee_id,


Based on the link, this formatting does not follow the recommended style https://docs.telemetry.mozilla.org/concepts/sql_style.html#join-conditions

Suggested change

hr_employee.id employee_id,

FROM

hr_employee

JOIN

resource_resource

ON hr_employee.resource_id=resource_resource.id

LEFT JOIN

resource_calendar

ON resource_resource.calendar_id=resource_calendar.id

JOIN

res_company

ON hr_employee.company_id=res_company.id

LEFT JOIN

resource_calendar company_resource_calendar

ON res_company.resource_calendar_id=company_resource_calendar.id

carlos-lopez-tecnativa · 2026-07-09T18:53:57Z

+    openupgrade.add_columns(
+        env,
+        [
+            (
+                "hr.attendance",
+                "validated_overtime_hours",
+                "float",
+                None,
+                "hr_attendance",
+            )
+        ],
+    )


This field already exists in v18 and is computed and stored, so why is it necessary to add the column?
The logic used to compute the field has changed slightly, but I understand that adding the column should not be necessary.

https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/e88fb3a5f5c2239f2a3f434a4ac3052e3e156ef1/addons/hr_attendance/models/hr_attendance.py#L49

carlos-lopez-tecnativa · 2026-07-09T20:33:04Z

+NEW hr.attendance.overtime.rule: hr_attendance.hr_attendance_overtime_employee_schedule_rule (noupdate)
+NEW hr.attendance.overtime.rule: hr_attendance.hr_attendance_overtime_non_working_days_rule (noupdate)


I think we should force the creation of these records to preserve the behavior from v18

In v18, there are two company-level fields used to configure tolerance for both the employee and the company. Odoo did not remove these fields(see), but the implementation is now handled by the new hr.attendance.overtime.ruleset model.

If these fields are set in my database, attendance records are taken into account when computing extra hours. However, in v19, if the corresponding rules are missing and the ruleset_id field is not set on hr.version, extra hours are not computed correctly.

These records are not created because they are inside a noupdate block with forcecreate="0" see this file. In addition, we need to transfer the values from the company fields to the corresponding rule.

[MIG] hr_attendance

6622a2b

hbrunn added this to the 19.0 milestone Jun 9, 2026

OCA-git-bot mentioned this pull request Jun 9, 2026

Migration to version 19.0 #5363

Open

This comment was marked as duplicate.

Sign in to view

legalsylvain added the Blocked by dependency label Jun 9, 2026

legalsylvain mentioned this pull request Jun 9, 2026

[19.0][OU-ADD] hr_timesheet_attendance: Nothing to do #5690

Open

This comment was marked as off-topic.

Sign in to view

legalsylvain added Dependency OK and removed Blocked by dependency labels Jun 23, 2026

pedrobaeza requested changes Jun 24, 2026

View reviewed changes

fixup! [MIG] hr_attendance

279edb6

OCA-git-bot added mod:openupgrade_scripts Module openupgrade_scripts series:19.0 labels Jun 30, 2026

carlos-lopez-tecnativa suggested changes Jul 10, 2026

View reviewed changes


		# NOTHING TO DO

		hr_attendance / hr.attendance / in_location (char) : NEW

-    hr_employee.id employee_id,
+    FROM
+        hr_employee
+    JOIN
+        resource_resource
+        ON hr_employee.resource_id=resource_resource.id
+    LEFT JOIN
+        resource_calendar
+        ON resource_resource.calendar_id=resource_calendar.id
+    JOIN
+        res_company
+        ON hr_employee.company_id=res_company.id
+    LEFT JOIN
+        resource_calendar company_resource_calendar
+        ON res_company.resource_calendar_id=company_resource_calendar.id

		NEW hr.attendance.overtime.rule: hr_attendance.hr_attendance_overtime_employee_schedule_rule (noupdate)
		NEW hr.attendance.overtime.rule: hr_attendance.hr_attendance_overtime_non_working_days_rule (noupdate)

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Conversation

hbrunn commented Jun 9, 2026

Uh oh!

hbrunn commented Jun 9, 2026 • edited by github-actions Bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

This comment was marked as duplicate.

This comment was marked as off-topic.

This comment was marked as off-topic.

This comment was marked as off-topic.

This comment was marked as off-topic.

This comment was marked as off-topic.

This comment was marked as off-topic.

hbrunn commented Jun 23, 2026

Uh oh!

legalsylvain commented Jun 23, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

carlos-lopez-tecnativa left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

hbrunn commented Jun 9, 2026 •

edited by github-actions Bot

Loading